brenner@aruba.DEC (06/30/84)
Sophie's article had so many questions to be answered in it that I didn't know where to begin. I've concentrated mostly on the things that touch me personally, mainly her assuming I'm a separatist. >MY understanding of the lesbian community is that there is a subgroup of >lesbians who choose to be lesbians for "political" reasons. These are >usually women like Ellen who consciously choose to be lesbians because they >think that men are creeps (to put it lightly). From the litterature I've >read by some of these women, the point (or reason or whatever) of this >switch is to rediscover female sexuality which has been buried under male >propaganda of what sex should be like: foreplay + intercourse (+ washing >oneself (-:). >This view of sexuality is usually accompanied by a different philosophy of >how the world should be, a place where caring and emotions are important, >etc..... Clarification--I think I've been extremely clear that I *like* men and women equally, in terms of friendship. In fact, I distinctly recall saying in an article that I go against the stereotype of lesbians being man-haters, and that I did not "choose" to be a gay person. In fact, I have a lot of trouble dealing with the lesbian separatists precisely for that reason. "Separatist" is the term used by the women whose point of view you describe. I think you have indeed described their philosophy acurately; I never subscribed to that philosophy, and in fact have gotten in fights with women who hold that point of view. Militant lesbian separatists are an extremely small group numerically, but being very vocal, they attract a lot of attention. There are many other lesbians who, like me, resent the separatists' attempts to speak for all lesbians; most of us are just living our lives, and don't ascribe any especially transcendent virtues to being "women-identified". I have caring and sharing as ideals in all my relationships--with women, with friends male or female, with my parents. Personally, separatism troubles me because it perpetuates the myth that lesbians are all man-haters, and that homosexuality is a conscious choice (only dressing it it political rhetoric instead of psychological jargon). I fear you hit a sore point with me. I'm still trying to figure out how you misread *me* as a separatist! Not by anything I said, that I can figure out! >It also seems (and here I am not as aware of the actual reality as I am >in the case of lesbians, so correct me if I am wrong) that there is a >subculture in the gay culture which is the complete antithesis of this >lesbian ideal: power is the basis of sex and a great emphasis is put on >anonymousness, sex for sex' sake with no place for feelings, promiscuity >etc (i.e the image that most "straights" have of gays), in other words >everything that political lesbians loathe in "straight" men pushed to its >extreme. This is strictly my own observation: the number of gay men who fall into the subculture you describe appears to be numerically very small. Because this small group attracts a lot of sensational coverage by the straight media (as when a truck stop or bar or some such is raided), they get visibility very disproportionate to their numbers. And "political lesbians" are not synonymous with "lesbian separatists". Maybe that's how you mistook me for a separatist--I have a strong political sensibility, therefore I must be a separatist? Ann Maguire, Boston's mayoral liason to the gay community, is obviously political, but obviously not a separatist--she purports to speak for everybody, so I imagine she can't afford to feel loathing for any part of her constituency! :-) >Obviously lesbians and gay men do have common interests since they are >both discriminated against by society at large, so as there is power >in numbers it is in their interest to join forces to try to achieve >better rights in society. However the philosophies of these two >subgroups seem to be so irreconciliable (that of the political lesbians >and of the "promiscuous" (let's say) gay men, not of lesbians and >gay men in general) that I wonder how they manage to work together when >their ideals are so different. I was just curious as to whether this produces >a rift into the gay culture, whether these two subcultures just ignore >themselves except to join forces to get things accomplished, or whether >there is hatred or debating going on about ideals etc.... I have never >seen any mention of this problem anywhere in the lesbian litterature I >have read and I am wondering why. Can anybody enlighten me? Well, yes; there are serious rifts, especially between the militant separatists and the mainstream political groups working on gay/lesbian rights. These are not unlike the rifts in, say, the Democratic party between the middle-of-the-road Mondale supporters and Jackson's Rainbow Coalition (in terms of the mechanics of the rift, only; the analogy doesn't carry over to comparisons of their respective philosophies). What usually happens can be typically seen in any of the Gay Pride rallies that have just taken place. The gay/lesbian mainstream does their thing and plans the march and it happens; the separatists sometimes totally ignore it, sometimes fire off salvoes of protest in the local gay newspaper. This last sometimes has positive results. For instance, over the years, these "gay pride" celebrations have pretty much been renamed "gay/lesbian pride" celebrations. The separatists pointed out, quite rightly, that "gay" was beginning to signify gay men only, and put out a feeling that gay women were overlooked. Then the women working in the mainstream effort said, "Yeah, that's right, how about letting everyone know we're here too?" And there was a lot of arguing, and eventually the name change would take place. So you see, gay extremist groups serve very much the same function as straight extremist groups--by always questioning, they sometimes hit the right question and cause an improvement in the mainstream. I guess that's why, even though separatists give me the willies, I'm sort of glad they're there. I disagree with them like crazy, but they keep people on their toes. If you haven't seen this in the literature you've been reading, I suggest reading one of the big gay/lesbian newsweeklies. In Gay Community News, you can count on a diatribe on such topics in almost every issue's letters page. I imagine it is the same for the others. If you keep on reading only lesbian-separatist literature, you're only going to get a small part of the picture. Ellen Brenner ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!aruba!brenner
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/02/84)
My apologies to you, Ellen for misrepresenting you. I had mixed up in my mind
yours and Trish's articles. I have reread them since as people started
calling trish names, and I realised I had got something wrong somewhere. So
my questions should have said "Trish" instead of "Ellen". This goes to show
how one should always check when one isn't sure.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleysaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/02/84)
Thanks for answering my questions, Ellen. As I said in my last message, I
mistook you for Trish, and at the time had only read one article from each of
you, which made it easy. Since then, you have posted more (and I also have
heard from Trish) so I do know that you are two different people. I guess I
should have posted a little correction note when I figured out my mistake.
(but I DID get your attention that way!)
I don't know whether I am reading only separatist litterature or not. My
view of lesbians comes mainly from feminist litterature, whose authors'
sexual orientations and attitudes vary greatly. I am aware that the
lesbian separatists are a minority and that the men I was talking about
(I am not sure what would be the most appropriate way to describe them,
so I will call them minority A (as in first letter of the alphabet)) are
also a minority within the gay men.
How little a minority they are is what I do not know since I am not part
of the gay community and only get my information second hand. I also do
not have enough gay friends (whose sexual orientations I know about) to
be able to clarify this.
I did not invent the term "political lesbian". I read it a while ago in
an article by a lesbian who called herself this; It was not used to refer to
lesbians who are interested in politics, but rather lesbians who CHOOSE
to be lesbians for political reasons (and here "political" is not meant
to refer to the usual partisan politics, but to the more general sense of
"anything related to the exercise of power in a society" ). I thought this
term was more appropriate than "lesbian separatist" because political lesbianism
does not imply separatism: it is more concerned with a redefinition of sexual
attitudes and sexual practices and a "rediscovery of female sexuality" than in
hating. However, I can see now that the term "political" just like "feminist"
(my second choice) is just too vague and could very well be interpreted any
old way. So to rephrase my question, what I was more interested in was hearing
how different gay groups with very fundamentally different sexual philosophies
got along rather than how men-hating lesbians and women-hating-gays got along.
As I had never seen any criticism of minority A from "political lesbians", I
was wondering whether it was because they were much more concerned with
keeping a united front than in arguing philosophical or political points,
or whether it was because I was just very unnaware of what is going on in
gay circles. It seems that the latter is the case, so thanks for telling me
so - I will try to become more aware of what is going on.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley